For those interested in becoming better educated on the patent issues currently wreaking havoc on the greater software community (both free and non-free), Debian has published a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ. This is an issue very close to home for the aptosid project. Every time some asks why we censor anything **multimedia** related, emotions run high. Unfortunately, this is a legal issue, which we as a small team comprised entirely of volunteers can not afford to fight. Hopefully this FAQ will offer some clarification on the issues at hand.

Of course it does - it protects the team and it's members (and our users as well) against patent ligitation (and other legal threads).
Thanks for the link, very well written primer to the "FOSS and Patent Infringement" topic.
Greetings,
Chris

And yes, we choose to do it with a word filter, because some super-smart people thought they might play with variants of links, google search links or "google for xyz, first link". We therefore replace 3 critical words and their variants with a link to http://aptosid.com/index.php?module=Con ... amp;pid=10 - which friendly explains the issue.
Greetings,
Chris

towo: That is an untested legal theory, which we are simply not willing to be the test case for. Perhaps it's odd that the members of such a bleeding-edge distribution are risk adverse (or maybe that's why our final product is of such a high quality), but that's the way we are. Feel free to host and distribute the information elsewhere; we simply can not afford the risk. Are you going to help cover the muli-million dollar damages when the Fraunhofer Institute or MPEG LA come knocking on our door?

_________________#aptosid-art ftw!
(what would cleary do?)

bfree

Post subject:Posted: 10.07.2011, 13:37

Team Member

Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 261

Status: Offline

And the linked document only deals with patent issues which does not cover all the threats.

Here's the relevant snippet which applies explicitly to me within my own national borders, but the USA now seems to believe it can enfoce it's laws via extradition if they can associate actions to a domain name they believe falls under their control.

370.—(1) This section applies where, by or with the licence of the rightsowner—
(a) copies of copyright works to which rights protection measures have been applied or recordings of performances to which rights protection measures have been applied, are made available to the public, or
(b) copies of databases to which rights protection measures have been applied, are re-utilised.
(2) A person who makes available to the public or re-utilises the copies referred to in subsection (1) has the same rights and remedies against a person who—
(a) (i) makes,
(ii) sells, rents or lends, or offers or exposes for sale, rental or loan,
(iii) imports into the State, or
(iv) has in his or her possession, custody or control,
a protection-defeating device, knowing or having reason to believe that it has been or is to be used to circumvent rights protection measures, or
(b) provides information, or offers or performs any service, intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent rights protection measures,
as a rightsowner has in respect of an infringement of any of his or her rights under this Act.

Emphasis mine obviously to draw attention to how just a word or any hint which points someone in the "wrong" direction could be construed as assisting someone to circumvent so called rights protection measures.